Sizing the day

This volume is the most recent in a spate of publications presenting multiple views
on Genesis and creation. Unlike the other volumes, this one focuses on what the
Bible says about the length of the creation days.

The three views presented are (1) the 24-hour literal day view, (2) the day-age
view, and (3) the literary framework view. These views are defended by three teams
comprising David Hall and J. Ligon Duncan (24-hour view), Hugh Ross and Gleason
Archer (day-age view), and Lee Irons and Meredith Kline (literary framework view).
Apart from Hugh Ross, all contributors are from the Presbyterian tradition. The
format of the debate has each team presenting their view, followed by a response
from each of the other teams. The first team then has the opportunity to make any
further clarifications or to respond to any criticisms raised by the opponents.

The relevance of literal creation days

Hall and Duncan open their presentation by highlighting the great importance of
this debate:

‘The debate over the Genesis creation days involves issues of enduring significance
to the evangelical Christian community. It involves our doctrine of knowledge (epistemology),
doctrine of man (anthropology), defense of the faith (apologetics), and method of
interpretation (hermeneutics), all of which are intertwined with the Genesis creation
account’ (p. 21).

Therefore, contrary to popular belief, the debate over the days of creation is not
a trivial or irrelevant side issue—it greatly affects the foundations of Christian
theology.

Furthermore, they rightly point out that this is not just a purely exegetical debate—it
is also a hermeneutical and theological debate—especially in light of the
total lack of exegetical support for the other views (pp. 22–23). Hall and
Duncan demonstrate that the Genesis account is not just an apologetic against the
pagan worldviews of that day, but does indeed present an accurate, historical cosmogony.

History of Genesis interpretation

Hall and Duncan give a broad overview of why they accept the literal day view, as
well as offering brief refutations of the most common objections raised against
literal days. They also include short analyses of what the rest of the Bible says
about creation. However, probably the most valuable element of their contribution
is their summary of the history of interpretation of the creation days, which clearly
demonstrates that the literal day view was the dominant view up to the time of the
scientific revolution. This is especially helpful in light of the fact that the
historical evidence is often distorted and revised by those who want to find historical
support for their non-literal views. Although a very small number of interpreters
understood the creation days in a more figurative sense (e.g. Augustine), Hall and
Duncan show that none of these interpretations resemble anything like the day-age
or literary framework view.

Overall, Hall and Duncan do a reasonable job of presenting and defending the literal
day view, although they tend to rely too much on the history of interpretation.
Their exegetical case is relatively shallow.

In their response, Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer attempt to cast doubt over the accuracy
of Hall and Duncan’s historical summary. They claim that (contra Hall and
Duncan) Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Victorinus of Pettau, Methodius of
Olympus and Hippolytus ‘all explicitly endorse six consecutive thousand-year
periods for the Genesis creation days’ (p. 69). This is a wild distortion
of the truth and reveals how carelessly Ross and Archer read the ancient sources.

As Hall and Duncan document in their counter-response, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Lactantius, Victorinus and Methodius believed that the literal creation days represented
six future periods of 1,000 years which would comprise the entire history of the
world. In other words, the days of creation essentially foreshadow the
whole of world history. None of these fathers considered each of the actual creation
days to be literally 1,000 years in length. Ross and Archer also cite Clement of
Alexandria as holding to six consecutive 1,000 year periods, but again Hall and
Duncan expose their careless analysis: Clement held to an instantaneous creation
similar to that of Augustine. The same shallow historical research is apparent in
Ross and Archer’s treatment of Basil and Ambrose, Luther and Calvin, and the
Westminster divines.

Arguments from authority?

One point to which Ross and Archer object is the citation of James Barr in support
of the 24-hour view. Several years ago, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, James
Barr admitted that he thought the literal 24-hour day view was the most natural
and sensible understanding of the text and that, to his knowledge, no Hebrew or
Old Testament scholar at any world class university thought any differently. Young-earth
creationists (YEC)(including myself) have naturally gained a great deal of mileage
out of this admission, citing Barr in their presentations and publications.

However, as Ross and Archer point out, Barr has an agenda. He is an avowed enemy
of biblical inerrancy, so it is not surprising that he makes the above admission,
because, from his liberal and rationalistic perspective, the Genesis account is
so obviously wrong with respect to the facts of history and science that it forms
a perfect platform for him to debunk inerrancy.

Furthermore, Barr’s actual claim regarding the opinions of other scholars
is quite dubious. The only way Barr’s comment could be regarded as remotely
truthful is if he defines ‘world class university’ as only those universities
where the faculty share the same liberal, rationalistic, critical views as he does.
Contra Barr, R. Laird Harris, Walter C. Kaiser and Gleason Archer himself are well
known and internationally recognised Hebrew and Old Testament scholars (and certainly
known to Barr) who hold to the day-age theory.

However, it’s clear from their writings that they realize that the plain meaning
is just as Barr says, but it can’t be right because it disagrees with the
supposed ‘facts’ of science (which are really naturalistic interpretations
of the facts). So to preserve inerrancy, they invent other ways of understanding
the text. And most creationists realize that Barr is a liberal, and point out that
Barr doesn’t actually believe Genesis. But Barr is simply saying that sound
exegesis (in pursuit of the author’s intended meaning) would lead one to believe
that the writer(s) of Genesis believed in and intended their readers to understand
and believe in 6 literal days of creation a few thousand years ago and a global
flood. Barr, being an evolutionist, thinks the writer(s) was/were pre-scientific
and superstitious and therefore wrong, so has no motivation for trying to reinterpret
the text.

In any case, citing Barr is really an ‘appeal to authority’ which is,
of course, a logical fallacy. Therefore a citation from Barr should be accompanied
by concrete exegetical or theological support for his view, for which there is ample.

General and special revelation

Ross and Archer claim that Hall and Duncan have downplayed the significance of general
revelation, since (according to them) knowledge from this source has increased exponentially—especially
in astronomy (p. 73). Unfortunately, they do not see the glaring oxymoron in this
statement. General revelation, as the name suggests (and as any standard work on
systematic theology will show) is revelation that is accessible to all people, in
all places and in all times. But if the so-called ‘knowledge’ from astronomy
and other sciences is rapidly increasing at this time in human history then how
can it be called general revelation? It was not available to people in previous
generations! Clearly, Ross and Archer have wrongly equated modern scientific interpretations
and conclusions with general revelation.

Ross and Archer also claim that Christianity is unique in that it is ‘testable’
and cite Paul’s exhortation to ‘test everything’
(1
Thessalonians 5:21) in support (p. 73). However, this verse is most certainly
taken way out of context. Paul is admonishing the Thessalonians to test any prophetic
utterances in the church, in order to check whether they are authentic messages
from God. This has nothing at all to do with the kind of scientific verification
which Ross and Archer obviously have in mind. Furthermore, where does faith come
in? Hebrew 11:1 states: ‘Now faith is being sure of what
we hope for and certain of what we do not see’. To have faith means
that we are certain about God’s promises even though we do not actually see
them. Indeed, that is why we need to trust God!

Repeating tired anti-creationist canards

Other objections raised by Ross and Archer include the ‘problem’ of
non-solar light on Days 1–3, the ‘too many’ tasks of Adam on the
sixth day, and the missing ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ close-out
phrase on Day 7. These objections are, of course, nothing new and have been answered
many times before in young-earth publications, and it is tiresome to see the same
old objections being raised without any interaction with the responses already published
in YEC literature.1

In their response, Irons and Kline claim that the relationship between the first
and fourth days poses an exegetical problem for the 24-hour day view, since a chronological
reading implies there were evenings and mornings even though there was no sun, whereas
the framework interpretation avoids this problem. But this is not a new argument,
because it has been answered many times in the young-earth literature.1
Furthermore, my own critique of Kline’s framework interpretation demonstrates
that his view introduces many more exegetical problems than it solves.2

Another alleged exegetical problem for the 24-hour day view is the ‘eternal’
Sabbath which is supposed to imply an eternal seventh day (they cite
Psalm 95 and
Hebrews 4 in support). This is also not a new argument, and it too has
been answered in the YEC literature.3 Ironically, Irons
and Kline criticize (with some justification) Hall and Duncan for not being particularly
well acquainted with the literature of the framework interpretation, which has resulted
in their general misrepresentation of that position, and their failure to deal with
the exegetical issues. Yet in light of Irons and Kline’s lack of familiarity
with young-earth creationist literature, their criticism seems rather like a case
of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’.

Like Ross and Archer, Irons and Kline also question Hall and Duncan’s historical
analysis, but their objections are rebutted in the response.

Defending the day-age dogma

After reading the contribution on the day-age view by Ross and Archer, I am convinced
that both these men are so totally confused that it is difficult to take their ideas
seriously. Their presentation opens with an affirmation of the ‘dual-revelation
theory’ which is not only a denial of the historic doctrine of Sola Scriptura,
but also shows a great misunderstanding of what general revelation entails.4 In addition, as with Irons and Kline, they also claim
that the seventh day of creation is still continuing, and therefore the other creation
days must also be long periods of time.

Ross and Archer make the absurd claim that the creation day controversy continues
because people are afraid to integrate science and Scripture, believing that science
will shatter their confidence in Scripture (p. 124). First, much of what goes by
the name of ‘science’ is not science at all, but rather, philosophical
paradigms and untestable assumptions dressed up to sound scientific. Second, the
very fact that YEC reject this pseudo-science in favour of the Genesis account demonstrates
that they have full confidence in the truth and authority of Scripture. Third, until
recently, nearly all of the YEC writers have been highly qualified scientists, who
have attempted, with remarkable success, to show that evolution is not scientific
fact or even science and that the true scientific facts confirm the literal truth
of Genesis.

It seems, however, that it is Ross and Archer and others who hold to the day-age
view, who have lost their confidence in Scripture. I.e. they appear to be absolutely
certain about naturalistic theories about the age and origin of the cosmos and earth,
but are very skeptical about the obvious meaning of Genesis 1–11. Thus, they
have no problem with bending and stretching the text to breaking point in order
to get it to fit the latest consensus theories of the scientific establishment.
They are, however, quite right that the controversy is being prolonged by non-exegetical
issues. A considered and thorough exegesis of Genesis 1 reveals overwhelming support
for the literal 24-hour day view.

What is a literal ‘day’?

Ross and Archer claim that the day-age interpretation is just as ‘literal’
as the literal 24-hour day view. They assert that because Hebrew has a much smaller
vocabulary than English, it is natural that yôm has multiple literal
definitions, one of which is ‘a long (but finite) time period’ (p. 125).

First, this argument is based on a very naïve view of language, which is very
surprising given Archer’s reported knowledge of many languages. Linguistic
studies have shown that it is possible to express any concept in any language, regardless
of the available vocabulary. Languages which have a limited vocabulary may simply
require more words to express a concept which a language with a rich vocabulary
can express in a single word.

Second, yôm can only refer to a period of time when it occurs in
a grammatical relationship with certain other words (e.g. in
Genesis 2:4, the preposition be is prefixed to yôm).
However, the instances of yôm in Genesis 1 do not occur with any
of these other words which give it the sense of an indefinite period of time. What
we do find in Genesis 1 is yôm with a modifying numeral, and in every
other instance where yôm is modified by a numeral it always refers
to a literal 24-hour day. Thirdly, even if Ross and Archer could demonstrate the
possibly that yôm could inherently refer to a long period
of time (and they cannot), it would not necessarily mean or imply that the instances
of yôm in Genesis 1 also refer to a long period of time. It must
be demonstrated that the context of Genesis 1 requires this meaning
of yôm. Neither Ross and Archer nor any other proponent of the day-age
view has been able to demonstrate this.

Misrepresentations

One of the more bizarre claims in Ross and Archer’s presentation is that YEC,
by accepting the (observable) concept of rapid speciation, somehow accept the concept
of biological evolution (pp. 127–128)! It should be obvious from such comments
that Ross and Archer have very little, if any, understanding of what speciation
and biological evolution actually entail. It should not be too difficult for them
to understand the difference between variation produced by sorting and loss of already-existing
information and molecules-to-man evolution which requires information-increasing
change. However, they evidently have no intention of correctly representing what
YECs actually teach, although the documentation is copious so there isn’t
the slightest excuse.

The presentation contains many of the same old, tired and erroneous ‘biblical’
arguments for the day-age view, which are found in Hugh Ross’s own books and
writings. These arguments have been refuted over and over again, so there is no
need to repeat those refutations here.5,6 Indeed, this is the most disappointing aspect of the Ross/Archer
presentation. Ross is known for his exegetical fallacies and general mishandling
of Scripture, but one would expect that Archer, who is a Hebrew scholar,
would inject some careful exegetical analysis and sound judgment. Unfortunately,
this is not the case.

Another disappointment is the relatively shallow and defensive response by the literal
24-hour day advocates, Hall and Duncan. It is doubtful whether their comments will
make much impression at all on the reader.

Framework fudging

In their response, Irons and Kline object to Ross and Archer’s hermeneutic
and handling of the text, which, they correctly point out, is driven by science
rather than exegesis. It is ironic, however, that the hermeneutic program adopted
by Irons and Kline is also indirectly driven by scientific concerns, since the framework
view is purposely designed to free the biblical text from scientific criticism.

The framework view presented by Irons and Kline is well organized, well argued and
well defended. This view takes the Genesis account of creation as a theological
framework rather than a strictly historical, chronological account. It is important
to note that proponents of the framework view do not deny that the people and events
alluded to in the creation account are essentially historical. It should be obvious,
however, that in denying the historical and chronological nature of the account,
they have very little basis for this acceptance. This particular view is quite sophisticated
and has gained a great deal of support among evangelical and conservative theologians
and commentators. It does, however, have many serious problems. Unfortunately, both
teams of responders do a relatively poor job of exposing these problems. Thus, for
thorough refutations of this view, one should consult the work of Joseph Pipa7
and my own recently published paper on the framework view.2

In conclusion, although the literal day presentation by Hall and Duncan is one of
the better recent defences of the young-earth interpretation, it would have been
much stronger if they had devoted more space to exegetical issues and responded
more thoroughly to their opponents’ exegetical arguments. This is their presentation’s
weakest element. For this reason, and in light of the good presentation by Irons
and Kline, I think that a searching reader may be more drawn to the framework hypothesis.
Nevertheless, this volume has many good points and one will learn a great deal from
all of the presentations and their respective responses.

Creation.com reaches millions of people each year–many of these aren't believers in our Creator and Savior Jesus Christ. How will we keep reaching them without your support? Please consider a small gift today. Support this site